Sharpness of 17-40mm L?

[DrShouter]

Hey everybody,

A few days ago i bought a new 17-40mm L UW Lens, but I´m very dissapointed about the sharpness.
Is the blurriness at the edge and the corners normal for this lens?

Sorry for the silly question but this is my firs UW, 90% of my pictures were taken with the 70-200 f2.8 and this thing is razorsharp (Yes i know its a Tele).

Orginal Raws, out of the cam!

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/9r2ka4n8pn63hhb/g15WdQb8VX

Thanks!

Sorry for my bad english

 

[Loswr]

When shooting wide open, the 17-40L corners can be charitably described as mushy. Less flattering words have been used. Stopping down to or past f/8 improves them somewhat. The 16-35L II has better corner performance at wide apertures, but they're still not what I'd call sharp.

 

[DrShouter]

Thx for your reply.
So the sharpness of my copy (Test Images @Dropbox) is normal? I was really shocked because the test charts on "the digital picture" were sharp.

If this is normal, I will have to cope with it... :-\

 

[Loswr]

Thx for your reply.
So the sharpness of my copy (Test Images @Dropbox) is normal? I was really shocked because the test charts on "the digital picture" were sharp.

If this is normal, I will have to cope with it... :-\

I'd say your test image results are normal for the lens, and I wouldn't call the 17-40 corner crops on TDP sharp (at least, not compared to an actually sharp lens).

I assume that's an actual shadow on the right side of the first image, not asymmetrical vignetting.

 

[DrShouter]

Yes it is a shadow, I know not ideal for testing.
Thank you for your assessment.
I should really stop watching all of my pictures in 100%... ;D

 

[RLPhoto]

It's not the sharpest but @ f/8 it's passable. If you shoot smaller apertures, there's little difference to the much more expensive 16-35II.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

My 17-40 isn't the sharpest tool in the box either! Given that I rarely use it below F5.6 it's not too bad and at my normal apertures of F8 or F11 then it is passable.
The reason I keep mine is that it simply produces the nicest colours of any of my Canon lenses. I can't really define exactly what this is but when editing I normally leave the colours alone as they are rich and pleasing to my eye. My 800 F5.6 comes close (though very much sharper!) but I still prefer the colour rendition on my 17-40 to any lens I have or have yet tried.
Just my 2p

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I did not have any complaints about my 17-40L, as lenses go, the price was low, so I did not expect edges and corners to be sharp at f/4.

For those applications that need edge to edge sharpness at ultra wide angles, its going to be expensive, and you may trade off one weakness for another.

I've never managed to feel that any of my ultra wide lenses were all that sharp outside the central area, I was happier with my old Tamron 17mm f/3.5 prime, so I kept it and sold the 17-40.